SC Supreme Court rebukes judge who let killer go, praises press and attorney general

In a blistering rebuke of a solicitor and a now-retired judge, the S.C. Supreme Court on Wednesday defended open courts and praised a free press and a vigilant Attorney General for exposing the secret early release of a convicted killer from prison.

In its 3-2 decision, the majority of justices denounced in scathing terms the secret actions by retired judge Casey Manning and 5th Circuit Solicitor Byron Gipson that led to the secret and unlawful release of killer Jeroid Price last March from prison after he served only 19 years of a 35-year mandatory sentence.

“This case reminds us of the critical importance of open courts and the reasons court orders may not be sealed,” Associate Justice John Cannon Few wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined by justices John Kittredge and D. Garrison Hill.

A law governing early prisoner releases does not allow Manning and Gipson to do what they did in secret, the majority opinion said.

Few’s opinion described the various hidden and unlawful machinations by Manning and Gipson to get Price quietly released from prison without the public knowing. Another player in the action was Price’s lawyer, Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, who served as a go-between for Gipson and Manning.

An order from Manning directing the Department of Corrections to release Price was the final and most essential part of the scheme. Manning, a popular veteran judge and former University of South Carolina basketball player, signed the order on his last official day in office, Dec. 30, 2022, then retired after 28 years as a judge at age 72.

“The plan worked, until the press found out about Price’s release, until this Court exercised its constitutional authority to issue a writ of certiorari and unsealed all documents, (and) until the Attorney General stepped in to demand the law be followed,” Few wrote.

Last April, more than a month after Price’s quiet release, news of his being out was leaked to newspapers and television stations, creating a firestorm of reaction from numerous law enforcement officials and members of the public. In 2002, Price had shot and killed a man execution-style in a Columbia nightspot. The victim was Carl Smalls Jr., who had played football at the University of South Carolina and University of North Carolina.

As a result of the publicity over Price’s release, Attorney General Alan Wilson filed a motion with the Supreme Court asking it to hold a hearing in which Wilson would seek to have the high court vacate Manning’s release order. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction. Wilson’s lawyers were opposed by Rutherford, Price’s attorney.

Several hours after the April 26 hearing, the high court announced it was vacating Manning’s order and Price was to be sent back to prison. Wednesday’s written order memorialized the issues at play in the hearing and sent a strong message to South Carolina’s legal and law enforcement communities.

“We are greatly troubled by the fact that neither Solicitor Gipson nor Judge Manning made any effort to comply with even one of the requirements” for an early release, the opinion said. The requirements include holding a hearing and filing motions in court so the public would have access to what was going on, the high court noted.

Under a 2010 law, certain prison inmates are eligible for early release — but only if specific procedures, including making the process open to the public, are followed. One condition of early release is if the inmate while incarcerated has provided helpful and significant assistance to law enforcement. That condition is supposed to give inmates incentive to come forward and help officials solve crimes.

Documents indicated that Price saved corrections officers from injury or death and notified prison officials when a high-profile inmate escaped.

But neither Manning nor Gipson followed the requirements of filing open records in the case, the majority opinion said. In fact, Manning sealed the record in the case in a way that no one could learn of its existence, the majority opinion said.

“Judge Manning committed multiple errors of law and acted outside his authority,” the majority wrote.

Efforts to reach Manning were unsuccessful. Gipson declined comment, saying he had not yet read the Supreme Court’s opinion.

Rutherford held a late Wednesday afternoon press conference, in which he vowed to re-apply in the courts for an early release for Price, this time conducting the process in the open. That should include a public hearing where Price and others can testify about the help he gave to law enforcement, Rutherford said.

Unfortunately, Rutherford told reporters, the Supreme Court’s decision “does not recognize the danger Jeroid Price put himself into” when he gave information to law enforcement that helped them solve several cases involving dangerous criminal inmates.

Both Gipson and Manning did the best they could, not knowing how the Supreme Court might rule in a situation it had not dealt with before, Rutherford said. “They did what they thought was possible at the time.”

Inmates who give information that helps law enforcement should be able to have their identities shielded, the same way people who call Crimestoppers or help law enforcement do, Rutherford said. “Jeroid Price is being treated as someone who did something wrong, when in fact he did nothing wrong.”

Veteran South Carolina media lawyer Jay Bender said that “with respect to open courts and the role of the public and press in providing oversight to the judicial system, it’s a wonderful decision.”

“The situation the Supreme Court responded to is an example of many of the things wrong with the judicial system in South Carolina where transparency is given lip service but not observed,” said Bender, who has represented numerous media organizations including The State.

First Solicitor David Pascoe, one of several law enforcement officials who notified news media including The State newspaper about Price’s secret release, on Wednesday applauded the high court’s decision.

Manning’s “failure to be the gatekeeper of our laws is the reason our Supreme Court was able to correct the wrong,” Pascoe said. In 2003, Pascoe was the Richland County prosecutor who convinced a jury to convict Price.

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott, whose officers investigated Price’s case and testified at his murder trial, called Price’s case an example of “catch and release,” whereby criminals are released without the public being aware.

“A murderer is not supposed to be released early in secrecy,” Lott said. “If the media hadn’t jumped on it, Price would still be out.”

Price, 43, is back in custody in Kirkland Correctional Institution in the S.C. Department of Corrections. He is scheduled for release in May 2038 and is not eligible for parole.

In April, after the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against ordering Price back to prison, a 3-2 majority ordered that he be picked up and re-incarcerated.

It was not a sure thing that the Supreme Court — which usually takes cases on appeal — was going to deal with the emergency situation of a convicted killer unlawfully on the loose. But a majority of justices eventually agreed that a provision in South Carolina’s Constitution allows the high court to intervene in egregious lower court errors was flexible enough to give court jurisdiction.

After the Supreme Court ordered his arrest, Price stayed on the lam for 77 days before finally being arrested in early July in New York City by the FBI.

Attorney General Wilson said Wednesday, “We agree with the Court’s majority decision and appreciate it holding the state actors and lower court accountable for not following the law.

“Now that we have the full opinion, we will continue our review of the early releases from previous years. This was an unusual case, but the Court’s urgency to hear our original request and its ultimate decision proves no one is above the law in South Carolina.”

Dissenters in Wednesday’s opinion were Chief Justice Donald Beatty and Associate Justice George “Buck” James.

In his dissent, which was joined by Beatty, James wasn’t as nearly concerned about the public’s right to know what goes on in the courts as the majority justices.

Instead, James wrote that Attorney General Wilson had no authority to challenge and overrule Gipson, an independently elected local prosecutor.

Although the state Constitution says Wilson “has authority to supervise the prosecution of all criminal cases,” the early release of a prison inmate is an event that happens after the prosecution, so Wilson should not have been able to challenge the case in the Supreme Court, James wrote.

As faulty as Gipson’s decision to seek the early release of Price may have been, Gipson represented the State of South Carolina, and Wilson does not have the right to challenge the solicitor’s authority, James wrote. “This Court should not relieve the State from an order the State procured.”

Instead of issuing an order to arrest Price, the Supreme Court should have exercised restraint and resisted “the temptation to relieve the State from the consequences of its own actions,” James wrote.

John Crangle, a Columbia lawyer and authority on public ethics, on Wednesday hailed the Supeme Court’s reasoning and interpretation of the law.

“It was only by God’s grace that Price did not injure or kill an innocent person while he was running from law enforcement,” Crangle said. “I’m glad the Attorney General took action to put Price back in prison and prevent him from committing more violent crimes.”

This story was originally published September 6, 2023 at 1:34 PM.